Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Without an understanding of deep time, I'm not sure Darwin would have made sense of evolution as he did.
It does seem the history of biology & geology are linked in a way no other 2 sciences are. The question that came to my mind might be a bit too provocative for a forum that tends to degrade into mean-spiritedness.
Go for it.It does seem the history of biology & geology are linked in a way no other 2 sciences are. The question that came to my mind might be a bit too provocative for a forum that tends to degrade into mean-spiritedness.
The question in your OP or did you have another question in mind?
Go for it.
You obviously didn't read the verse in context. Solomon wasn't against learning, he was making a point about everything being temporary. And that anything we do is ultimately pointless without God. Like arguing on the internet. In the long run, what does it matter?No, I fully see it as a warning against spending time writing and reading.
But again, all it is from you is just post hoc logic. You have shown nothing that says that Solomon knew about evolution.
A different question.
I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.
Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?
Then who would respond to your posts?Just ignore trolls.
Science is all so interrelated that you can't say
anything is independent.
Geology without physics and chemistry would be impossible.
Bio w/o chemistry. Astronomy w /o Physics.
Evolution without deep time that depends on...
Let's look to a particular person. Say English geologist John Phillips, who scolded Darwin over some geological calculations. As a fellow scientist, he was not an enemy of Darwin, but "while Phillips was no biblical literalist, he was no evolutionist either." So we can take him as a conservative scientist of the old guard -- not yet persuaded as Huxley and others were on the topic of biological evolution as Darwin proposed it.
In 1865 [~5 years after "On the Origin"], Phillips was the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and gave the annual address. Starting in the middle of page 21 through 23, he outlines a great deal of the geology and the changing kinds of life on earth, until "in the fulness of time it pleased the Giver of all good to place Man upon the Earth"
Starting around p 31, he mentions Darwin's "elegant treatise". And like his discussion of geology, his discussion of the difference of living things over time seems to coincide very much with our modern understanding. But he stops short of endorsing Darwinism. Citing not enough evidence.
"Specific questions of this kind must be answered, before the general proposition, that the forms of life are indefinitely variable with time and circumstance, can be even examined by the light of adequate evidence. That such evidence will be gathered and rightly interpreted, I for one neither doubt nor fear; nor will any be too hasty in adopting extreme opinions or be too fearful of the final result, whi remember how often that which is true has been found very different from that which was plausible"
In the end, that's just what happened. Further evidence was gathered, and as the preponderance of evidence was gathered, acceptance of Darwin's theory went from a few people, to a minority position, to a majority position, to a fundamental theory of modern biology. Everyone's burden of proof may be set at a different level, but as the evidence piled up, acceptance within the scientific community became universal.
You seem to say Phillips' doubt (or is skepticism a better word?) was reasonable for the time.
Would you agree more evidence was needed at that time?
If so, is Huxley's acceptance reasonable?
And if that is so, what do you make of the coexistence of reasonable, yet opposite positions?
What do you make of the people who held them?
I can't really put myself in the headspace of biologists of 1860. I don't know.
A different question.
I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.
Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?
As I understand it, Darwin gained the insights behind his theory mainly from his observations of living creatures and selective breeding. He expected that the fossil record would support his theory, but lamented that the sparse fossil record of the time provided little support. Nevertheless, even without the extensive support we see from the fossil record today, his theory impressed and eventually convinced the conservative Royal Society, many of whom were advocates of 'special creation'.You seem to say Phillips' doubt (or is skepticism a better word?) was reasonable for the time. Would you agree more evidence was needed at that time? If so, is Huxley's acceptance reasonable? And if that is so, what do you make of the coexistence of reasonable, yet opposite positions? What do you make of the people who held them?
A different question.
I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.
Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?
A valid point, but I meant my statement in a different way.
I understand you're using some hyperbole, but I'll start from here to clarify what I meant.
Geology and physics have not developed at the same pace. Therefore, if geology without physics is impossible, then the geology done prior to having a mature physics would be invalid - something I'm sure you disagree with. As such, geology actually can be done without physics.
If you want the extreme example, consider Harty Fields' book Science Without Numbers.
What did I mean, then? Consider the following example: The fossil record is often used as evidence for evolution. While geology & paleontology may be used to support evolution, what they show is the result, not the mechanism or the cause. Therefore, at a time when the mechanisms and causes were unknown, evolution could not stand without that support, though it is fair to expect that at some point it should stand without that support. If the mechanism of evolution were never to be found, how could it be considered valid?
In that sense, wasn't it valid to criticize those gaps in evolution? Of course there is a difference between mercenary criticism and criticism meant to move science in a better direction. But judging between those two becomes a subjective exercise. After all, the criticism could remain valid to the point of bringing the science under question to an end. Aren't we better off that phlogiston, impetus, and the ether are gone?
In the case of evolution and geology, the results are complementary. But what if they were not? As in the case of quantum physics and relativity.
Before this begins to seem like an attack on evolution, let me bring it back to show why this is a question of historical interest. Why do people continue to push a hypothesis that cannot support itself? That conflicts with other areas of science? They may feel justified in doing this when the hypothesis is later demonstrated and becomes accepted theory, but does that really justify what they did? Just as many times these ideas fail (or at least I know many of my ideas have failed).
That is a question of historical interest: Why did they keep going at a time when the hypothesis had no support? When the attacks went beyond the academic and became vicious.
I couldn't find the exact quote, but once when Einstein was asked what it was like to be celebrated by his peers, he replied with something like: Celebrated? All I remember is how they enjoyed criticizing me.
Suppose I was an engineer who theorized that a certain manned space flight shouldn't take place because of temperature concerns? what should be done?As a rule contrary data, is disproof, game over.
So what researcher would make a fool of himself?
A valid point, but I meant my statement in a different way.
I understand you're using some hyperbole, but I'll start from here to clarify what I meant.
Geology and physics have not developed at the same pace. Therefore, if geology without physics is impossible, then the geology done prior to having a mature physics would be invalid - something I'm sure you disagree with. As such, geology actually can be done without physics.
If you want the extreme example, consider Harty Fields' book Science Without Numbers.
What did I mean, then? Consider the following example: The fossil record is often used as evidence for evolution. While geology & paleontology may be used to support evolution, what they show is the result, not the mechanism or the cause. Therefore, at a time when the mechanisms and causes were unknown, evolution could not stand without that support, though it is fair to expect that at some point it should stand without that support. If the mechanism of evolution were never to be found, how could it be considered valid?
In that sense, wasn't it valid to criticize those gaps in evolution? Of course there is a difference between mercenary criticism and criticism meant to move science in a better direction. But judging between those two becomes a subjective exercise. After all, the criticism could remain valid to the point of bringing the science under question to an end. Aren't we better off that phlogiston, impetus, and the ether are gone?
In the case of evolution and geology, the results are complementary. But what if they were not? As in the case of quantum physics and relativity.
Before this begins to seem like an attack on evolution, let me bring it back to show why this is a question of historical interest. Why do people continue to push a hypothesis that cannot support itself? That conflicts with other areas of science? They may feel justified in doing this when the hypothesis is later demonstrated and becomes accepted theory, but does that really justify what they did? Just as many times these ideas fail (or at least I know many of my ideas have failed).
That is a question of historical interest: Why did they keep going at a time when the hypothesis had no support? When the attacks went beyond the academic and became vicious.
I couldn't find the exact quote, but once when Einstein was asked what it was like to be celebrated by his peers, he replied with something like: Celebrated? All I remember is how they enjoyed criticizing me.
Another of your hobby-horses demonstrating your lack of understanding.Suppose I was an engineer who theorized that a certain manned space flight shouldn't take place because of temperature concerns? what should be done?
LOL -- not because the principles were wrong, but because we didn't get it right.Not for lack of knowledge and not because any well established principles were wrong, but because people don't always get things right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?